'Monsanto Protection Act' slips silently through US Congress

A non-food plant which can harmfully modify a food plant, is now a Plant Pest, under 412 (c). Cattle feed plants are regulated similarly. The
battle inside the FDA is a separate battlefield, this is on the farms only, but protects them all the way into commercialization.

Yes. Your claim was about seed products which are "adversely affecting consumer health." Section 735 has no jurisdiction in such a case. If
GMO products are shown to have adverse effects on consumer health section 735 is not relevant and offers no "protection".
You seem be working toward the "noxious weed" part of the Plant Protection Act. That is something which may apply but GMOs would first have to be
classified as such before they could be regulated. That has not been done though attempts (in at least one case, Kentucky Bluegrass) have been made.
Since corn really can't be considered a weed, I don't see how it could ever fall into that category.

I work with them on international food trade agreements with China and South American nations. They are a grower.

Not exactly relevant
to this case. Unless those products are imported to the US in such form as might constitute being a plant pest. In which case I would ask for
evidence.

Besides, they have agreements with farms who will make this request on their behalf.

I would submit that those requests would be on
behalf of the farmers themselves. A single waiver would not cover all farms.

This is a republishing of the legislation which is modified older legislation.

Citation? Why would "modified" legislation not include
current practices?

REGULATIONS
.—The Secretary may issue regulations to
implement subsection (a), including regulations requiring that any
plant, plant product, biological control organism, noxious weed,
article, or means of conveyance imported, entered, to be exported,
or moved in interstate commerce—

(1) be accompanied by a permit issued by the Secretary
prior to the importation, entry, exportation, or movement in
interstate commerce;

(2) be accompanied by a certificate of inspection issued
(in a manner and form required by the Secretary) by appro-
priate officials of the country or State from which the plant,
plant product, biological control organism, noxious weed, article,
or means of conveyance is to be moved;

(3) be subject to remedial measures the Secretary deter-
mines to be necessary to prevent the spread of plant pests
or noxious weeds; and

(4) with respect to plants or biological control organisms,
be grown or handled under post-entry quarantine conditions
by or under the supervision of the Secretary for the purposes
of determining whether the plant or biological control organism
may be infested with plant pests or may be a plant pest
or noxious weed.

Originally posted by Phage Since corn really can't be considered a weed, I don't see how it could ever fall into that category.

I work with them on international food trade agreements with China and South American nations. They are a grower.

Not exactly relevant
to this case. Unless those products are imported to the US in such form as might constitute being a plant pest. In which case I would ask for
evidence.

Besides, they have agreements with farms who will make this request on their behalf.

I would submit that those requests would be on
behalf of the farmers themselves. A single waiver would not cover all farms.

This is a republishing of the legislation which is modified older legislation.

Citation? Why would "modified" legislation not include
current practices?

edit on 3/28/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)

1. Corn which is a food/feed danger is no longer food/feed. It can interbreed with food corn, so by 412 (a) and (c) and 411 (H) it is a Plant
Pest.
2. Aside from the fact that they are listed in the trade documentation as a 'grower'; please tell me how exactly you genetically hybridize a crop
without being a grower?
3. And the legislation decided to give jurisdiction to genetically controlled plants, but not define it. Again this is non-sensical.

This is a series of trivial, red herring and pseudo-correctness arguments, protecting a premise which is non-sensical in the first place. I have laid
out a cogent and well documented version of the legislation and the danger it presents to the ability of the American People to protect their food
supply. This is the parsimonious case.

I think that rather than just arguing banality to enjoy the art of arguing, you need to take the ethical professional step of outlining and defending
your version of the legislation and its intent.

Who knows, perhaps we will get lucky and a judge will interpret it your way? But for me, I would rather the rights of the American People with
respect to their food supply be made VERY CLEAR, in its legislative crafting.

3. And the legislation decided to give jurisdiction to genetically controlled plants, but not define it. Again this is non-sensical.

What is a genetically controlled plant? Where is it mentioned in the legislation? Why should it be defined if it is not mentioned?

I think that rather than just arguing banality to enjoy the art of arguing, you need to take the ethical professional step of outlining and
defending your version of the legislation and its intent.

The intent is to allow farmers to not immediately lose or be unable to sell their
crops should a plant pest which was not formerly regulated become so. The intent is to allow the Secretary to allow waivers, with proper controls, for
a period of time so that the farmer can address the situation.

Monsanto........the new axis of evil. When you ingest g.m.o's the immune system is activated indicating a foreign non food material has entered the
blood stream.
They feel there are too many people in the world and this is one of many ways to reduce the population slowly.
Once the pollen contaminates ALL PLANTS AND TREES we will have to pay royalties to Monsanto to visit the national parks to see the nature we once
owned .
Monsanto's dioxins were spayed on me and my town times beach, mo and it is no longer on the map,gone.
I think we will look back one day and realize this is a type of WARFAIR conducted on us, but we did not have the information to stop it because of
intellectual property rights.

The intent is to allow farmers to not immediately lose or be unable to sell their crops should a plant pest which was not formerly regulated become
so. The intent is to allow the Secretary to allow waivers, with proper controls, for a period of time so that the farmer can address the situation.

Are you aware why the farmers have been placed into such a position?

Is it because the turn around time for new GM strains is becoming so fast that the regulators cannot keep up, maybe it is part of agenda 21 trying to
fully regulate the food chain and still has some catching up to do, or is there some other reason that a determination has not be made on what the
farmers are planting?

GMOs are just a symptom of a much larger problem!
These things are happening because the population is willfully ignorant! In being so we deserve whatever is in the cards! We are lazy when it comes to
maintaining our freedoms! When we ignore the power behind the scenes this is what happens! I can only hope in our descendants future when perhaps our
children or grandchildren take back their freedoms, they may learn from our arrogance ignorance and lack of paranoia! They should never forget that
freedom and equality must be maintained through sacrifice, hard work and diligence!
As for us we may never see any positive changes because of our lack of fortitude! I expect we will have to suffer greatly before the majority becomes
aggressive enough to subdue our oppressors! God help us in the coming decades cause we will pay a high price for our foolishness!

Why does it have to be found in 735 subsection A? Why are you pointing to that at the exclusion of the rest?

Because that is what the blogs against this has identified as the greatest threat. Section 735. That is why it is pointed out; that is where people
are creating this "Monsanto Protection Act" title from. So it is natural to discuss the language of that subsection; in which it does nothing like
the blogs have said.

Placed in the position of what they though they where planting was a food crop, but ends up turning out to be a pest plant.

or is there some other reason that a determination has not be made on what the farmers are planting?

If no determination has
been made, what's the point?

The point is the public has to unknowingly eat this stuff. We know what happened to the economy when the banks dropped their due diligence in terms of
loans, the writing is on the wall for what is going to happen as GMO developers drop their due diligence with seed production.

Yes you are correct ,this is just the tip of the iceberg,for example If half of the people in the U.S got sick from G.M.O. tainted food .......THE
GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT WOULD SKYROCKET
The system is rigged for profit and only profit, as more people get sick the doctors make more money,the gov collects more taxes ,the ambulance
drivers make more pay, the nurses make more.It is now a UNSTOPABLE MONSTER FEEDING ON US.
It will come crashing down soon if this is allowed to keep feeding.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.